Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Seeking Serenity

(3,328 posts)
13. Absolutely. In January, after the overwhelming Blue Wave has been seated
Sun Jul 7, 2024, 05:45 AM
Jul 2024

And the best president in any of our lifetimes re-inaugurated, the Congress needs to enact a law expanding the Court to 25 seats with an express requirement that no fewer than 17 justices must be appointed by Democratic presidents and if any Democratic-appointed justice retires or dies in office, then that justice must be replaced by a Democratic president's appointment. If, in the unlikely event that we have a GOPper president, then any such vacancy replacement shall be recommended by the Democratic leaders of the House and Senate to the president who shall nominate such recommendation.

It's time to stop screwing around with that permanent minority party. President Obama said in 2008 that we needed to fundamentally change this country. It's past time we got started.

Recommendations

1 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Jefferson & Lincoln w/ 2 warnings about checks/balances-upsetting power of judicial review by SCOTUS Celerity Jul 2024 #1
Jefferson, markodochartaigh Jul 2024 #8
what he said is hardly a compliment to the judges Celerity Jul 2024 #9
Exactly my point. markodochartaigh Jul 2024 #30
I find the sarcasm emoji helps at times (as I too make sarcastic comments that are not always clear) Celerity Jul 2024 #31
Thanks foe the 2 President's opinions. KS Toronado Jul 2024 #15
THIS malaise Jul 2024 #16
It really doesn't matter what people call it. Mike Niendorff Jul 2024 #2
I agree. Think. Again. Jul 2024 #11
Absolutely. In January, after the overwhelming Blue Wave has been seated Seeking Serenity Jul 2024 #13
The current SC would rule 9-0 to overturn MichMan Jul 2024 #29
The immunity question is derived from English Common Law Sympthsical Jul 2024 #3
So the court took a law that would pertain to a king in a monarchy... Think. Again. Jul 2024 #12
No Sympthsical Jul 2024 #14
Nemo iudex in causa sua harumph Jul 2024 #17
An important principle Sympthsical Jul 2024 #18
I see, so the court referred to laws... Think. Again. Jul 2024 #20
It's how our system of law works Sympthsical Jul 2024 #23
hmmm... Think. Again. Jul 2024 #24
It's the exact opposite of that Sympthsical Jul 2024 #25
When facing a question that has no precedent... Think. Again. Jul 2024 #26
And they typically don't Sympthsical Jul 2024 #27
This ruling can not stand. Think. Again. Jul 2024 #28
Much of our law has it's roots in the English common law . n/t Ms. Toad Jul 2024 #22
This case seems different from anything I've seen before because V850i Jul 2024 #19
It's just how American law works Sympthsical Jul 2024 #21
Knr UTUSN Jul 2024 #4
Certainly the part about not being able to question a president's motives Qutzupalotl Jul 2024 #5
No, not in this case. unblock Jul 2024 #6
Yes, just like Scalia totally changed what the 2nd Amendment is in DC v. Heller. nt SunSeeker Jul 2024 #7
that's my thought about what they did /nt The Wandering Harper Jul 2024 #10
They're trying to disembowel it struggle4progress Jul 2024 #32
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Did the Supreme Court ext...»Reply #13